On Thu, 06 Jun 2013 15:54:24 +0100, Dylan Knutson <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Thursday, 6 June 2013 at 10:48:54 UTC, Lars T. Kyllingstad wrote:
On Thursday, 6 June 2013 at 10:32:36 UTC, Regan Heath wrote:
On Thu, 06 Jun 2013 08:55:50 +0100, Lars T. Kyllingstad
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Thursday, 6 June 2013 at 07:05:52 UTC, Lars T. Kyllingstad wrote:
[...]
Let me add some more to this. To justify the addition of such a
type, it needs to pull its own weight. For added value, it could do
one or both of the following:
Does System.IO.DirectoryInfo:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.io.directoryinfo.aspx
Add sufficient value to justify it's existence to your mind?
vs just having System.IO.Directory:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.io.directory.aspx
They add great value, but that is a completely different discussion, as
these are more similar to std.file.DirEntry. The added value is mainly
in the performance benefits; for example,
if (exists(f) && isFile(f) && timeLastModified(f) < d) ...
requires three filesystem lookups (stat() calls), whereas
auto de = dirEntry(f);
if (de.exists && de.isFile && de.timeLastModified < d) ...
is just one.
I see no such benefit in the proposed Path type.
Path and dirEntry are different modules with different goals to fulfill.
I don't think it's appropriate to compare a module whose function is
path manipulation with one whose is querying filesystem information.
Yeah, my fault. I didn't take the time to look at the proposed module in
detail.
R
--
Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
